Monday, 21 January 2013

Another year has begun but the issue of captive dolphins remains
unresolved. There has been a paradigm shift in public opinion all over the
world for the past several years but Philippine courts and government officials
have yet to see the light. I wonder what it will take to make them realize that
their actions – or inaction – are causing much damage to the marine environment
as well as to their image among the Filipino public and the rest of the world.

A judge’s misguided
judgement has already caused the death of a dolphin named Wen Wen en route to
Singapore. Animal welfare activists in Asia manifested their protest against
this gross injustice by holding candlelight vigils and memorial services
simultaneously in Manila, Jakarta, Thailand and Singapore last December 2.

In Manila, the service
was held at the Philippine Animal Welfare Society’s (PAWS) Animal
Rehabilitation Center at the corner of Aurora Boulevard and Katipunan Avenue.
The atmosphere was loaded with sadness while the flickering flames of the
candles of participants illuminated their gloomy faces.Frustrated by the obvious indifference and
ridiculous ruling of the QC Regional Trial Court (QC RTC), an activist became
emotional as she spoke of the need to never forget Wen Wen and what he stood
for.I had never seen anything
like it. I had never imagined I would one day be attending a memorial service
for a dolphin. PAWS even erected a memorial tile with the inscription: “Rest in
Peace, Wen Wen. Swim freely across the Rainbow Bridge.”But then 10-year old Wen-Wen
was – or is – special. He was born in the wild and lived his first six years in
absolute liberty, swimming 25 miles a day, breaching, chasing fish and
cavorting with other members of his pod as all dolphins are meant to. Then
human greed caught up with him and he suddenly found himself a captive in pools and tanks filled with chlorinated
water.He was trained to play with
hoops and balls, objects which he would never have encountered in the wild. He
was fed dead fish and made to earn his keep by performing for boisterous
children and ignorant adults. He was a prisoner though he had not committed any
crime. But the shape of his face and head made people believe he was always
smiling and happy.The “dolphin smile” is the
world’s greatest deception, as environmentalist Ric O’Barry always says.Wen-Wen died on a plane last
November 22 while being transported to Singapore where he was to be one of 25
dolphins slated to perform for the holidays at Resorts World Sentosa (RWS).It was a sad and unjust death
for a highly intelligent being and a tragic loss for his already depleted
species.

DOLPHINS IN THE SOLOMON ISLANDS

But let’s backtrack a little bit. You may ask why a small bunch of
activists and environmentalists is making all this fuss about Wen Wen and his
kind.

The 25
wild-caught Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) flown to Singapore last November were taken from
the Guadalcanal area in the Solomon Islands. RWS brought them to Ocean
Adventure Park in Subic in three batches in 2008, 2009 and 2011. They were to
be trained and prepared for their eventual fate as animal entertainers.

But
scientific reports from the International Union for the Conservation of Nature
(IUCN) revealed that the dolphin population in the Solomon Islands (SI) is severely at risk and their harvest or extraction would further endanger the
survival of the species.

According to
the IUCN "Indo-Pacific Bottlenose Dolphin Assessment Workshop Report”,
there are now less than 5,000 individuals in the Solomon Islands.

The SI
government banned all dolphin hunts in their territorial waters starting
January 2012. In addition, the law now stipulates that only one dolphin can be
captured every five years.

The captures, mostly by an American company, had
been done despite the international restrictions and recommendations.

The 24 dolphins now in Singapore are the survivors of a long and cruel
journey. They were originally 27 –- before Wen-Wen, two died in their original
destination, Langkawi, Malaysia.

Earth Island Institute (EII), which monitors the welfare of captive marine
mammals all over the world, and local animal welfare groups tried to block the
entry of the Solomon dolphins in the Philippines, citing the IUCN report and
the Philippine Wildlife Act (RA 9147).

But the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) of the Department
of Agriculture would have none of it.

Philippine Courts and Philippine Laws

While the SI dolphins were still in Subic, the environmental and animal
welfare groups continued to ask BFAR officials not to re-export the dolphins to
Singapore. If the dolphins were to go anywhere, the groups wanted it to be the
Solomon Islands.

When their pleas fell on deaf ears at the BFAR, they tried the courts.
They had high hopes at first because Section 6 of RA 9147 states that "all activities…shall be authorized by the
Secretary upon proper evaluation of best available information or scientific
data showing that the activity is, or for a purpose, not detrimental to the
survival of the species or subspecies involved and/or their habitat".

Trixie Concepcion, EII’s
Regional Director for Asia, said the DA and BFAR violated RA 9147 when they
allowed the dolphins to enter the Philippines despite recommendations to the
contrary of the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species
(CITES) and internationally recognized scientific bodies like Silliman
University and the National Museum.

EII, PAWS, CARA (Compassion and Responsibility for Animals) and concerned
individuals thenfiled a petition to prevent the issuance of a re-export
permit for the 25 dolphins. About an hour later, the office of the First Vice
Executive Judge of the QC Regional Trial Court issued a 72-hour Temporary
Environmental Protection Order (TEPO).

The
Philippine Department of Agriculture (DA), the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic
Resources (BFAR) and Resorts World Sentosa in Singapore were respondents in the
case.

Lawyer Mel
Velasco said this case is a first in Philippine legal history. "We are
charting unknown waters. We saw a loophole — the rule of using precautionary
measures when there is conflict between authorities and they (the government)
didn't follow that," he said.

The
Precautionary Principle in Environmental Law is cited in the Convention on the
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) which the Philippines
ratified in August 1981.

CITES is an
international agreement that regulates trade in wild animals and plants and
protects all species. According to CITES, authorities should consider the best
interest of the conservation of species in any undertaking.

"BFAR
violated certain rules. Precautionary measures should have been observed before
they issued the permit to import the dolphins," Velasco said.

“In light of the CITES provisions, any import
of sea mammals should have the green light of internationally recognized
scientific bodies. In the Philippines, National Museum and Silliman University
are recognized as the CITES marine mammal experts," he clarified. "BFAR
ignored the recommendations of National Museum and Silliman University.”

“Dolphins Are Pets”

But after 72
hours, Judge Evangeline Castillo- Marigomen of QC RTC Branch 101 ruled against
any extension of the TEPO, saying the government agencies had not violated the
law and the dolphins are like pets that belonged to RWS anyway.

"We were shocked and
aghast when the judge likened the Solomon Island dolphins to 'pets'. She even
asked us if we have been to SeaWorld where she said the dolphins are well cared
for," Concepcion said.

In effect,
this ruling allowed RWS to fly the dolphins to Singapore.

"This is tantamount to
saying that it is all right to capture, train and use wild dolphins for dolphin
shows even if this will threaten their survival in the wild," Concepcion
quipped.

She added that “dolphins
must never be mistaken as pets because they are wild animals”. To illustrate
her point, she cited the case of two animal trainers and one intruder who died
at SeaWorld after one of the resident killer whales, Tillicum, dragged them
into the water and drowned them.

EII, PAWS,
CARA Welfare Philippines, and 10 environmental and animal welfare advocates filed
another petition, saying the re-export of the dolphins would violate both the
CITES treaty and the country's Wildlife Act.

Concepcion
called on the public to closely monitor the government's actions when it comes
to environmental issues.

"We are
doing this because if we don't do anything, it will institutionalize the
government's failure to abide by its commitment to CITES, to protect all
species and not just the dolphins," she stressed.

ACRES

Singapore-based
ACRES launched in 2011 the campaign to 'Save the World's Saddest Dolphins' to pressure
both governments to return all the Solomon Islands dolphins to their natural
habitat. . The campaign’s online petition has so far generated over 680,000 signatures
from all over the world.

Last December 7, representatives of
ACRES went to see the dolphins. “We regret that the dolphins are being housed
in appalling conditions; in tiny barren swimming pools,” ACRES Chief Executive Louis Ng said in a statement.

ACRES
has issued a final ultimatum: RWS must
work with ACRES and Earth Island Institute for the rehabilitation and release of
the dolphins back into the wild, or the group will launch a “full-fledged
boycott against not just Resorts World, but all Genting properties.”

ACRES
urged RWS to review the facts and reconsider their decision to keep the Solomon
dolphins. “We hope that we won’t need to launch a boycott, but we are ready to
do so if needed and we are confident that members of the public will support
this,” Ng said.

With the Philippine
court’s failure to act on a matter of environmental conservation, the animal
welfare groups are confident that the Filipino people, like the Singaporeans,
will eventually be able to pressure both governments to fly the dolphins back
to the Solomons.